Concept of a nation.

[Whiskey Priest]

I'm sorry. Are you guys objecting to the idea of universally recognized human rights or are you merely pointing out some of the problems that might arrise from its application? If your arguement is that it is difficult so we should not do it, then you will be more likely to be oppresed by a tyranical governement then someone who decides to fight for their rights no matter the cost. Thomas Jefferson once said "occasionally the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike".

 

[knowltok3]

Universal application of Human Rights is indeed a laudable goal, but my question was more about a nation that has acceptable human rights, but doesn't want to sign on to the rest of the package, including the loss of sovreignty. Also assume that the people (a majority) are in agreement. You have a nation and people that is treating its citizens decently and is proud of its heritage, and yet you are sanctioning it because it refuses to join this new world government.

I hope you don't think I am trying to construct a straw man arguement, I am just trying to clarify the principles under which you are going to form this government. I also want to pose the question of why a nation cannot be left out of this new government if it chooses. Sure it will not gain the benefits, but why should it be punished, provided that it is not violating basic human rights (Which are defined differently by different peope).

 

[Benz]

Concept of a nation!

I think it is well said, what concept is given to the word nation?

Nation, nationalism... how can we define it in a way we can all understand the same thing about it?

I think Nation or nationalism is only a tool. What you are doing with it and how you are using it, that is another story.

It is like the nuclear, which I also see it as a tool. You can choose to create a nuclear powerplant and feed millions of famillies with electicity or, you can choose to construct a nuclear bomb and destroy the same millions of famillies. It won't change anything at what the nuclear is, a potential form of energy. You choose what you do with it.

Nation is the same. You can choose to conquer the world and eliminate the races you do not like and start slavery to serv yours or... you can choose to live in a way that would show to the rest of the world how intelligent your social choices are and benefit to your community. Then you become an example to follow on the points you are good at.

I think the concept of nation is very important. Almost since the globalization is getting closer to a nearby reality. Use it wisely!

"Universal application of Human Rights is indeed a laudable goal, but my question was more about a nation that has acceptable human rights, but doesn't want to sign on to the rest of the package, including the loss of sovreignty. "

Very good point!

That is exactly the trap in which the multi-nationals want to put us in. They call that Free Market and they say it will force the countries to respect freedom. It is a sophism. If your business is free to do whatever you want, you can bull**** any country you would like to. The best example is that multi-national in Mexico that suited a city because the company has not met the local specs of environment safety. The company won at the NAFTA's supreme court and the city must pay a compensation. It is only a beginning and it can become worse.

No matter what you put in a Human Rights treaty, never let go the sovereignty of the nations and be cautious to the power you give it. I don't we would like to see the slave kids in Viet-Nam, India or else become a legal business that you can't suit against it.

 

[knowltok3]

That is exactly the trap in which the multi-nationals want to put us in. They call that Free Market and they say it will force the countries to respect freedom. It is a sophism. If your business is free to do whatever you want, you can bull**** any country you would like to. The best example is that multi-national in Mexico that suited a city because the company has not met the local specs of environment safety. The company won at the NAFTA's supreme court and the city must pay a compensation. It is only a beginning and it can become worse.

I'd like to hear more about this. Who was the company, were the standards more loose or more strict than those in Mexico as a whole, and is there any possibility that there was extortion going on? Was the company perhaps found in violation on trumped up charges and appealed as an alternative to paying a bribe?

By no means am I saying any of this happened, but I like to know more about the case and why the NAFTA supreme court sided with the company.

 

[Benz]

NAFTA sided with the company because the environmental rules in that city were higher than the standard set by NAFTA.

The city refused to allowed the project because of that matter and the multinational suited them.

Geez! I don't have the link anymore of the specific example I am talking about but, as soon as I get it back, I'll tell you.

Meanwhile, if you do a search with the words suit/sue mexico multinational NAFTA, you will find several cases like this one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metalclad
This case involves a claim by U.S.-based Metalclad, a waste-disposal company, that the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi breached Chapter 11 of NAFTA in refusing permission for a waste disposal facility.

The governor deemed the plant an environmental hazard to surrounding communities, and ordered it closed down on the basis of a geological audit performed by environmental impact analysts at the University of San Luis Potosi. The study had found that the facility is located on an alluvial stream and therefore would contaminate the local water supply. Eventually, the governor declared the site part of a 600,000 acre ecological zone.

Metalclad sought compensation of some $90 million for expropriation and for violations of national treatment, most favored nation treatment and prohibitions on performance requirements. This figure is larger than the combined annual income of every family in the county where Metalclad's facility is located.

In August 2000, a tribunal found that Mexico had breached the Investment chapter and awarded Metalclad $16.7 million, the amount it had spent in the matter. In this case, Metalclad proceeded to begin construction of the facility without having local approvals, claiming that it had assurances from the Mexican federal government. The case raises important questions about whether governments retain the authority to enact environmental controls on foreign investors and about the powers of local governments.

The Mexican government has appealed the award to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, since hearings of the case were held in British Columbia, and the Canadian government and government of Quebec have intervened.

http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2001/01april/corp1.html

 

[knowltok3]

Potentially this is troubling, but I'd like to know how the environmental laws in that area compare to the laws across North America. This could easily be a case of NIMBY. The facility of a waste disposal company is likely to be fought anywhere that it is proposed. I note that the governor seems to have had sole authority to shut down the plant and create an ecological zone. Convenient that the study was done by the local university.